5.56 or 7.62? A compromise may be the best

We are talking about the 7.62 X 51 right? Because an intermidiate cartridge of 7.62 x 51 and .223 Nato (5.56 x 45) has been around for about 60 years. Remember the 7.62 x 39R ? I was wondering wouldn't it fit for this intermediate purpose? Or is it too inaccurate at significant distance? Or some other draw back.
 
Yes, Vitaly, I was referring to the 7.62x51...

The 7.62x39R is a great round for close range work, but is very inaccurate at anything over 200 meters....where the 7.62x51 REALLY shines. The 5.56 is very accurate at 200M, but ballistically, it is a dud at those ranges.It simply cust right through targets without any significant damage or knock down. For suppressive fire, you really can't beat the 5.56, because of the sheer amounts of ammo one man can carry. If you are in a situation where you need to take out enemy directly and your goal is not to keep their heads down while your mates manuever, then the 7.62x51 is good.
 
I have another question, Do you think that the 7.62 x 39 round is inaccurate do to the cartridge itself or just the fact that the most commonly used platform for it is inaccurate. As in, would the cartridge be accurate in a weapon such as the CZ 527 Carbine ( http://www.cz-usa.com/01.detail.php?id=15 ) ?
 
"The 7.62x39R is a great round for close range work, but is very inaccurate at anything over 200 meters...."

Don't use inaccurate eastern AKs since their barrels and iron sights are simply crap for any use which needs accuracy, the round itself isn't bad at all when used in right weapon. RK95 and 62 hits a coin at range 300m for example. ;)
 
EuroSpike said:
RK95 and 62 hits a coin at range 300m for example. ;)

Only by an accident :D

The sight issue simply is a matter of preference, I got more used to the Ak style sights by using PKM. I never really liked the diopter sight in the first place or I was just so lousy shooter with Rk.
I've heard that during desert storm U.S soldiers regularily engaged enemy troops out of 500 meters away with M16, I guess it could be done since the 5.56mm bullet has very flat trajectory but its quite prone to wind effects :?
 
"Only by an accident :D"

Guess who was the best marksmanship during NCO course? RK62, 5 shots 45points at 300m, iron sights. 8)

AK sights are mostly useless at ranges over 100m compared to "hole sights".

"I've heard that during desert storm U.S soldiers regularily engaged enemy troops out of 500 meters away with M16"

500m is quite long range to engage and even hit with iron sights. :shock:
 
45 points at 300 meters, that's just awesome :shock: I was having tough time hitting the target plate itself with Rk at that range, but this clearly shows a gun is just as accurate as the person firing it.
 
Armyjaeger said:
45 points at 300 meters, that's just awesome :shock: I was having tough time hitting the target plate itself with Rk at that range, but this clearly shows a gun is just as accurate as the person firing it.

Nope, awesome was to win with that result. The second best got 44p, so i was lucky sob, but 1st position is 1st position anyway. 8)

RKs are first class to shoot, rest is up to shooter himself. Usually i have had problems to adjust my sights correctly and those usual 5+3 targeting shots are too less IMO. Good hits don't help if they aren't inside 10 radius.
 
I have to say, the 7.62x39 round itself is OK. It doesn't have wonderful ballisitics but does what it does, better than most. I still wouldn't trust it past 200 or 300 meters. Regardless of weapon.

The 5.56 has a VERY flat trajectory and could well reach out and do serious damage at 500 meters, but don't expect to see great ballistics, it will simply pass straight through soft targets. If you have to go to 500 meters, get a 7.62NATO of sorts....GPMG or DM.
 
Armyjaeger said:
I've heard that during desert storm U.S soldiers regularily engaged enemy troops out of 500 meters away with M16, I guess it could be done since the 5.56mm bullet has very flat trajectory but its quite prone to wind effects :?
That is correct, and the difference is due to the weapon sight and the accessory sights that are used. The accuracy of a weapon increases with the increase in the sight radius i.e the distance between the rear and fore sight.
A 7.62x51mm round or 7.62x39mm can also hit a target at 500 mtrs.
 
The 5.56mm round was selected 45 yrs ago due to in concept of the future battlefield.
A 7.62x51mm round is a killer. When a soldier is hit, he dies.
A 5.56mm round is designed to wound, so that he is carried out of the battlefield by his unit, thus reducing minimum 4 men from the scene of fighting and less men to fight against.
Besides a wounded soldier, screaming his guts out, reduces moral of the enemy troops vis-a-vis a dead soldier.
 
lemontree said:
The 5.56mm round was selected 45 yrs ago due to in concept of the future battlefield.
A 7.62x51mm round is a killer. When a soldier is hit, he dies.
A 5.56mm round is designed to wound, so that he is carried out of the battlefield by his unit, thus reducing minimum 4 men from the scene of fighting and less men to fight against.
Besides a wounded soldier, screaming his guts out, reduces moral of the enemy troops vis-a-vis a dead soldier.

That's a pretty big statement. Do you have any links? Although that could have been a reason, that severely wounding is just as good as killing... if not better because it uses enemy resources, lowers morale of those alive etc., I don't know if that's the MAIN reason why they'd select an ammo type. I mean, then why bother switching if you can just kill the bastard with what you got anyways and save the money of converting your entire arsenal to 5.56mm?
 
Are insurgents and terrorists willing to risk that minimum of 4 men to carry out a single wounded...I didn't think so.
 
I was thinking and, what do you think about an even smaller bullet with even faster speeds. I have the .204 ruger in mind with it's speed of 4000 fps.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
That's a pretty big statement. Do you have any links?
Unfortunately, there are no links provided for what is taught in military academies and courses of instruction. However, I shall try and locate some links for you.
the_13th_redneck said:
I don't know if that's the MAIN reason why they'd select an ammo type. I mean, then why bother switching if you can just kill the bastard with what you got anyways and save the money of converting your entire arsenal to 5.56mm?
Ammo types are selected for specific reasons.
- For instance 9mm or .45 rounds are used in CQB weapons like pistols and SMGs, as the reason is to neutralise the target with minimum hits. It is designed to stop/kill at close ranges, hence these rounds are snub nosed and not as aerodynamic as rifle rounds that are required to hit targets are increased ranges.
- Another reason is over heating of barrels. A 7.62x51mm round fired by a L1A1 SLR generates 14,000 calories of heat in the chamber of the barrel. If auto fire is required the barrel get heavier and increases the weight of the weapon. Hence, you notice that the FN SLR and M-14 genre of rifles were semi-auto inspite of having capability for auto fire.
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.
 
Armyjaeger said:
Are insurgents and terrorists willing to risk that minimum of 4 men to carry out a single wounded...I didn't think so.
When this concept of warfare vis-a-vis intention to kill or wound was being envisaged 45-50 yrs ago, the terrorist and insurgent problem was non existant.
However, if you are dealing with insurgents, they also tend to act with some levels of decency as compared to terrorists. An insurgent and terrorist is not the same person.
An insurgent only attacks symbols of govt authority, i.e army, police of the occupying forces or the own govt forces. He does not attack or harm civilians since he depends of them for his survival and he is their freedom fighter.
A terrorist care about none of the above. He kills indiscriminatly civilian or army alike.
 
lemontree said:
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.

Yes I know that, but what's that got to do with the whole wounding is better than killing bit?
 
the_13th_redneck said:
lemontree said:
- A 5.56mm round is smaller than a 7.62x51mm round and has lesser ampount of propellant, hence, the heat generated in the chamber while firing is less. This enables the weapon to be made automatic, which has its own advantages for the infantyman.
These are very valid reasons for a country to spend millions of dollars on conversion of rifle calibres.

Yes I know that, but what's that got to do with the whole wounding is better than killing bit?
A weapon is designed based upon the type of missile being thrown at the enemy. The system is designed keeping the intention in mind.
When the intention is to reduce the fighting strenght or bayonet strength of the enemy then a suitable projectile is developed to achive that. The concept is to increase the administrative pressure on the enemy during war.
When you are going for attack on a defended locality, if your troops fall dead, the commander does not have much of a bother, since he just waits for the rear echlons to fetch up and carry away the body bags. But when more troops are just wounded then he is at pressure to provide immediate medvac for these troops. Medvac is a moral booster in war.
Now if the objective has been captured, but the bayonet strength of the attacker is denuded due to carrying away of the wounded, then a counter attack by the enemy to regain ground will not have much opposition. And captured ground is lost. A waste of resourses and effort.
 
6.8 SPC

Why not take the 6.8x43 SPC??? It´s the middelway between the 5.56 and the 7.62!
 
I've thought of the 6.8, but from reports I've read, there are some feeding issues in the MG's and it is also a bulkier round than the 5.56 - pretty much eliminating all weight savings of going to intermediate cartridge. The 6.8 is just too close to a 7.62 Nato round to be a real intermediate. I still think that merely increasing bullet diameter and sectional density would greatly improve the 45 mm case design - simply open up the neck a little and stuff a 6mm (.243) in it and there you go - then replace the barrel and optics on your AR with smm parts and you are good to go. The mags,receivers,bolts and iron sights will still work with the 6mm round.
 
Back
Top